Priority setting for Canadian Take-Home Naloxone best practice guideline development: an adapted online Delphi method.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Take-Home Naloxone (THN) is a core intervention aimed at addressing the toxic illicit opioid drug supply crisis. Although THN programs are available in all provinces and territories throughout Canada, there are currently no standardized guidelines for THN programs. The Delphi method is a tool for consensus building often used in policy development that allows for engagement of stakeholders.Methods
We used an adapted anonymous online Delphi method to elicit priorities for a Canadian guideline on THN as a means of facilitating meaningful stakeholder engagement. A guideline development group generated a series of key questions that were then brought to a 15-member voting panel. The voting panel was comprised of people with lived and living experience of substance use, academics specializing in harm reduction, and clinicians and public health professionals from across Canada. Two rounds of voting were undertaken to score questions on importance for inclusion in the guideline.Results
Nine questions that were identified as most important include what equipment should be in THN kits, whether there are important differences between intramuscular and intranasal naloxone administration, how stigma impacts access to distribution programs, how effective THN programs are at saving lives, what distribution models are most effective and equitable, storage considerations for naloxone in a community setting, the role of CPR and rescue breathing in overdose response, client preference of naloxone distribution program type, and what aftercare should be provided for people who respond to overdoses.Conclusions
The Delphi method is an equitable consensus building process that generated priorities to guide guideline development.
SUBMITTER: Ferguson M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9250272 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND:Research priority setting with stakeholders can help direct the limited resources for health research toward priority areas of need. Ensuring transparency of the priority setting process can strengthen legitimacy and credibility for influencing the research agenda. This study aims to develop a reporting guideline for priority setting of health research. METHODS:We searched electronic databases and relevant websites for sources (frameworks, guidelines, or models for conducting, appraising, reporting or evaluating health research priority setting, and reviews (including systematic reviews)), and primary studies of research priority setting to July 2019. We inductively developed a list of reporting items and piloted the preliminary guideline with a diverse range of 30 priority setting studies from the records retrieved. RESULTS:From 21,556 records, we included 26 sources for the candidate REPRISE framework and 455 primary research studies. The REporting guideline for PRIority SEtting of health research (REPRISE) has 31 reporting items that cover 10 domains: context and scope, governance and team, framework for priority setting, stakeholders/participants, identification and collection of priorities, prioritization of research topics, output, evaluation and feedback, translation and implementation, and funding and conflict of interest. Each reporting item includes a descriptor and examples. CONCLUSIONS:The REPRISE guideline can facilitate comprehensive reporting of studies of research priority setting. Improved transparency in research priority setting may strengthen the acceptability and implementation of the research priorities identified, so that efforts and funding are invested in generating evidence that is of importance to all stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Not applicable.
| S-EPMC6935471 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThis study describes the 2016 expansion of the British Columbia Take Home Naloxone (BCTHN) programme quantitatively and explores the challenges, facilitators and successes during the ramp up from the perspectives of programme stakeholders.DesignMixed-methods study.SettingThe BCTHN programme was implemented in 2012 to reduce opioid overdose deaths by providing naloxone kits and overdose recognition and response training in BC, Canada. An increase in the number of overdose deaths in 2016 in BC led to the declaration of a public health emergency and a rapid ramp up of naloxone kit production and distribution. BCTHN distributes naloxone to the five regional health authorities of BC.ParticipantsFocus groups and key informant interviews were conducted with 18 stakeholders, including BC Centre for Disease Control staff, urban and rural site coordinators, and harm reduction coordinators from the five regional health authorities across BC.Primary and secondary outcome measuresTake Home Naloxone (THN) programme activity, qualitative themes and lessons learnt were identified.ResultsIn 2016, BCTHN responded to a 20-fold increase in demand of naloxone kits and added over 300 distribution sites. Weekly numbers of overdose events and overdose deaths were correlated with increases in THN kits ordered the following week, during 2013-2017. Challenges elicited include forecasting demand, operational logistics, financial, manpower and policy constraints. Facilitators included outsourcing kit production, implementing standing orders and policy changes in naloxone scheduling, which allowed for easier hiring of staff, reduced paperwork and expanded client access.ConclusionFor THN programmes preparing for potential increases in naloxone demand, we recommend creating an online database, implementing standing orders and developing online training resources for standardised knowledge translation to site staff and clients.
| S-EPMC6830612 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveWith growing attention on the healthcare industry as a potential market for big data and artificial intelligence in the Fourth Industrial Revolution, countries around the world are introducing and developing various policies and projects related to health information technology (HIT). To assist prioritizing HIT topics in policy making, this study adopts the Delphi technique to garner expert opinions from various fields of health informatics.MethodsData were collected from November 2019 to February 2020 using the Delphi technique through two rounds of surveys administered via email. The Delphi panel consisted of 16 experts with a high level of experience in health informatics. They were from the Health Information Policy Advisory Committee of the Ministry of Health and Welfare of Korea, and the board of directors of the Korean Society of Medical Informatics. The experts were asked to assess the importance, urgency, and difficulty of HIT topics in three domains: technology, application, and infrastructure.ResultsOf the 40 topic items, a 100% agreement was reached for the importance of 6 items, including 2 items in technology, 1 item in application, and 3 items in infrastructure domains. Especially, Quadrant I of a 2×2 matrix showing high importance and high urgency included 7 items in the technology domain, 2 items in the application domain, and 13 items in the infrastructure domain.ConclusionMost items with high importance and urgency belonged to the infrastructure domain. The findings indicated that fostering an infrastructural environment should be polices with top priorities of HIT.
| S-EPMC7438690 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAfter the 2011 cluster of Hendra virus cases in horses in Australia, public health targeted education initiatives at people in the equine industry to reduce human exposure to potentially infected horses. 'Horse owners and Hendra Virus: A Longitudinal cohort study To Evaluate Risk' aims to enhance public health measures through improved understanding of Hendra virus risk perception and risk mitigation strategies among horse owners and horse care providers. This paper describes the stakeholder consultation that was undertaken to ensure the cohort study outcomes were relevant to diverse groups who play a role in Hendra virus policy development and implementation.MethodsA two-round modified Delphi study with online questionnaires was conducted. In round one, stakeholders identified priority research areas. In round two, stakeholders rated and ranked topics that emerged from thematic analysis of the round one responses. Round two data were analysed using logistic regression.ResultsOf the 255 stakeholders contacted, 101 responded to round one. Over 450 topics were proposed. These were organized into 18 themes. Approximately two thirds of the round one respondents participated in round two. 'Hendra virus-related risk awareness and perception', 'personal health and safety', 'emergency preparedness', 'risk prevention, mitigation, and biosecurity', and 'Hendra virus vaccination in horses--attitudes/uptake' were the top five areas identified according to probability of being ranked extremely important.ConclusionsIn this study, a modified Delphi approach was effective in guiding research into Hendra virus, a zoonotic disease of animal and human health significance. The findings support the notion that stakeholders should be engaged in zoonotic disease research priority setting. Such consultation will help to ensure that research initiatives are relevant and useful to stakeholders in the position to make use of new findings.
| S-EPMC4015955 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionSpinal cord injury (SCI) is a life-altering injury that leads to a complex constellation of changes in an individual's sensory, motor, and autonomic function which is largely determined by the level and severity of cord impairment. Available SCI-specific clinical practice guidelines (CPG) address specific impairments, health conditions or a segment of the care continuum, however, fail to address all the important clinical questions arising throughout an individual's care journey. To address this gap, an interprofessional panel of experts in SCI convened to develop the Canadian Spinal Cord Injury Best Practice (Can-SCIP) Guideline. This article provides an overview of the methods underpinning the Can-SCIP Guideline process.MethodsThe Can-SCIP Guideline was developed using the Guidelines Adaptation Cycle. A comprehensive search for existing SCI-specific CPGs was conducted. The quality of eligible CPGs was evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. An expert panel (n = 52) convened, and groups of relevant experts met to review and recommend adoption or refinement of existing recommendations or develop new recommendations based on evidence from systematic reviews conducted by the Spinal Cord Injury Research Evidence (SCIRE) team. The expert panel voted to approve selected recommendations using an online survey tool.ResultsThe Can-SCIP Guideline includes 585 total recommendations from 41 guidelines, 96 recommendations that pertain to the Components of the Ideal SCI Care System section, and 489 recommendations that pertain to the Management of Secondary Health Conditions section. Most recommendations (n = 281, 48%) were adopted from existing guidelines without revision, 215 (36.8%) recommendations were revised for application in a Canadian context, and 89 recommendations (15.2%) were created de novo.ConclusionThe Can-SCIP Guideline is the first living comprehensive guideline for adults with SCI in Canada across the care continuum.
| S-EPMC8604491 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundColorectal cancer, one of the most commonly diagnosed cancers, is now being detected earlier and treatments are improving, which means that patients are living longer. Partnering with Canadian clinicians, patients and researchers, we aimed to determine research priorities for those living with early-stage colorectal cancer in Canada.MethodsWe followed the well-established priority-setting partnership outlined by the James Lind Alliance to identify and prioritize unanswered questions about early-stage (i.e., stages I-III) colorectal cancer. The study was conducted from September 2018 to September 2020. We surveyed patients, caregivers and clinicians from across Canada between June 2019 and December 2019. We categorized the responses using thematic analysis to generate a list of unique questions. We conducted an interim prioritization survey from April 2020 to July 2020, with patients, caregivers and clinicians, to determine a shorter list of questions, which was then reviewed at a final meeting (involving patients, caregivers and clinicians) in September 2020. At that meeting, we used a consensus-based process to determine the top 10 priorities.ResultsFor the initial survey, 370 responses were submitted by 185 individuals; of the 98 individuals who provided demographic information, 44 (45%) were patients, 16 (16%) were caregivers, 7 (7%) were members of an advocacy group, 26 (27%) were health care professionals and 5 (5%) were categorized as "other." The responses were refined to create a list of 66 unique unanswered questions. Twenty-five respondents answered the interim prioritization survey: 13 patients (52%), 2 caregivers (8%), 3 advocacy group members (12%) and 7 health care professionals (28%). This led to a list of the top 30 questions. The final consensus meeting involved 20 individuals (10 patients [50%], 3 caregivers [15%] and 7 health care professionals [35%]), who agreed to the top 10 research priorities. The priorities covered a range of topics, including screening, treatment, recurrence, management of adverse effects and decision-making.InterpretationWe determined the top research priorities for early-stage colorectal cancer using a collaborative partnership of stake-holders from across Canada. The priorities covered a broad range of topics that could be addressed by future research, including improved screening practices, the role of personalized medicine, the management of adverse effects of treatment, decision-making and prevention of recurrence.
| S-EPMC9259415 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Pandemic influenza may exacerbate existing scarcity of life-saving medical resources. As a result, decision-makers may be faced with making tough choices about who will receive care and who will have to wait or go without. Although previous studies have explored ethical issues in priority setting from the perspective of clinicians and policymakers, there has been little investigation into how the public views priority setting during a pandemic influenza, in particular related to intensive care resources. METHODS: To bridge this gap, we conducted three public town hall meetings across Canada to explore Canadian's perspectives on this ethical challenge. Town hall discussions group discussions were digitally recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Six interrelated themes emerged from the town hall discussions related to: ethical and empirical starting points for deliberation; criteria for setting priorities; pre-crisis planning; in-crisis decision-making; the need for public deliberation and input; and participants' deliberative struggle with the ethical issues. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings underscore the importance of public consultation in pandemic planning for sustaining public trust in a public health emergency. Participants appreciated the empirical and ethical uncertainty of decision-making in an influenza pandemic and demonstrated nuanced ethical reasoning about priority setting of intensive care resources in an influenza pandemic. Policymakers may benefit from a better understanding the public's empirical and ethical 'starting points' in developing effective pandemic plans.
| S-EPMC3331804 | biostudies-other
Project description:Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a disease which is associated with random and often unpredictable attacks of painful swelling typically affecting the extremities, bowel mucosa, genitals, face and upper airway. Attacks are associated with significant functional impairment, decreased Health Related Quality of Life, and mortality in the case of laryngeal attacks. Caring for patients with HAE can be challenging due to the complexity of this disease. The care of patients with HAE in Canada is neither optimal nor uniform across the country. It lags behind other countries where there are more organized models for HAE management, and where additional therapeutic options are licensed and available for use. The objective of this guideline is to provide graded recommendations for the management of patients in Canada with HAE. This includes the treatment of attacks, short-term prophylaxis, long-term prophylaxis, and recommendations for self-administration, individualized therapy, quality of life, and comprehensive care. It is anticipated that by providing this guideline to caregivers, policy makers, patients and their advocates, that there will be an improved understanding of the current recommendations regarding management of HAE and the factors that need to be considered when choosing therapies and treatment plans for individual patients. The primary target users of this guideline are healthcare providers who are managing patients with HAE. Other healthcare providers who may use this guideline are emergency physicians, gastroenterologists, dentists and otolaryngologists, who will encounter patients with HAE and need to be aware of this condition. Hospital administrators, insurers and policy makers may also find this guideline helpful.
| S-EPMC4210625 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is common amongst cancer survivors. There is rapidly growing research interest in FCR but a need to prioritize research to address the most pressing clinical issues and reduce duplication and fragmentation of effort. This study aimed to establish international consensus among clinical and academic FCR experts regarding priorities for FCR research.MethodsMembers of the International Psycho-oncology Society (IPOS) Fear of Cancer Recurrence Special Interest Group (FORwards) were invited to participate in an online Delphi study. Research domains identified in Round 1 were presented and discussed at a focus group (Round 2) to consolidate the domains and items prior to presentation in further survey rounds (Round 3) aimed at gaining consensus on research priorities of international significance.ResultsThirty four research items were identified in Round 1 and 33 of the items were consolidated into six overarching themes through a focus group discussion with FCR experts. The 33 research items were presented in subsequent rounds of the delphi technique. Twenty one participants contributed to delphi round 1, 16 in round 2, and 25 and 29 participants for subsequent delphi rounds. Consensus was reached for 27 items in round 3.1. A further four research items were identified by panelists and included in round 3.2. After round 3.2, 35 individual research items were ratified by the panelists. Given the high levels of consensus and stability between rounds, no further rounds were conducted. Overall intervention research was considered the most important focus for FCR research. Panelists identified models of care that facilitate greater access to FCR treatment and evaluation of the effectiveness of FCR interventions in real world settings as the two research items of highest priority. Defining the mechanisms of action and active components across FCR/P interventions was the third highest priority identified.ConclusionThe findings of this study outline a research agenda for international FCR research. Intervention research to identify models of care that increase access to treatment are based on a flexible approach based on symptom severity and can be delivered within routine clinical care were identified as research areas to prioritize. Greater understanding of the active components and mechanisms of action of existing FCR interventions will facilitate increased tailoring of interventions to meet patient need.
| S-EPMC7938308 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundResearch priority setting (RPS) studies are necessary to close the significant gap between the scientific evidence produced and the evidence stakeholders need. Their findings can make resource allocation in research more efficient. However, no general framework for conducting an RPS study among public health stakeholders exists. RPS studies in public health are rare and no such study has been previously conducted and published in Germany. Therefore, we aimed to investigate which research topics in public health are prioritised by relevant stakeholders in Germany.MethodsOur RPS study consisted of a scoping stage and a Delphi stage each split into two rounds. Firstly, we invited members of the German Public Health Association to gather expert insights during two initial workshops. Next, we defined the relevant stakeholder groups and recruited respondents. Thereafter, we collected research topics and assessment criteria with the respondents in the first Delphi round and aggregated the responses through content analysis. Finally, we asked the respondents to rate the research topics with the assessment criteria in the second Delphi round.ResultsIn total, 94 out of the 140 invited public health organisations nominated 230 respondents for the Delphi study of whom almost 90% participated in both Delphi rounds. We compiled a comprehensive list of 76 research topics that were rated and ranked by several assessment criteria. We split the research topics into two types, substantive research topics and methodological-theoretical research topics respectively, to ensure the comparability among the research topics. In both types of research topics-substantive research topics and methodological-theoretical research topics-the respective top five ranked research topics hardly differed between public health researchers and public health practitioners. However, clear differences exist in the priority ranking of many (non-top priority) research topics between the stakeholder groups.ConclusionsThis research demonstrates that it is possible, with limited resources, to prioritise research topics for public health at the national level involving a wide range of pertinent stakeholders. The results can be used by research funding institutions to initiate calls for research projects with an increased relevance for health and/or scientific progress.
| S-EPMC10463880 | biostudies-literature